JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Talcher in ST. Case No. 17 of 2004 convicting the Appellants in both the appeals for commission of offence u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing each one of them to imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Arjuna Behera was working as a Contractor. He had undertaken the job of repairing of the pedestral work of second Ash pond of N.T.P.C., Kaniha in the year 2003. He had engaged one Chitaranjan Samal of village Narad as a Supervisor to look after the repair work. On 2.5.2003 at about noon when the repairing work was going on, near the Ash pond, the Appellant Anuja Kumar Sahu came and threatened the Supervisor Chitaranjan Samal holding an iron rod and asked him not to come to the place of work. He also threatened to cut the deceased into pieces if he comes to look after the work. The deceased lodged a report before the O.I.C., Kaniha Police Station through his Supervisor on the basis of which a case was registered against the Appellant Anuja and he was forwarded to custody. After being released on bail, the Appellant Anuja threatened the deceased to kill him by running over his Marshal Jeep. On 14.7.2003 at about 1.30 P.M. the deceased was proceeding toward the over bridge from permanent township sitting on the back of a motor cycle driven by P.W.5 Sibaram Das. It is alleged that the Appellant who was driving his Marshal Jeep bearing Registration No. OR-06-E 8481 intentionally dashed at the back of the motorcycle near the Telephone Exchange of N.T.P.C. as a result the deceased was thrown out of the motorcycle and fell on the pitch side of the road whereas P.W.5 Sibaram fell on the left side of the road. It is further alleged that the Appellant Anuja proceeded forward and again came back by reversing the wheel of the jeep and ran over the deceased. Thereafter he left the place with the vehicle. The brothers of the deceased who were nearby the place also witnessed the incident and carried the deceased and injured P.W.5 to N.T.P.C. Hospital where the deceased was declared dead. Thereafter he left the place with the vehicle. The brothers of the deceased who were nearby the place also witnessed the incident and carried the deceased and injured P.W.5 to N.T.P.C. Hospital where the deceased was declared dead. On 14.7.2003 at about 3.15 P.M., Kandarpa Behera, P.W.8 who is one of the brothers of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. before the O.I.C., N.T.P.C. Police Station and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against both the Appellants for commission of offence u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. and charge-sheet was also submitted against another accused (since acquitted) Hemanta Kumar Sahu u/s 302/312 of the I.P.C. The prosecution in order to prove the charge, examined as many as 11 witnesses but none was examined on behalf of the Appellants. 3. The plea of the defence is complete denial of the prosecution case. Out of 11 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5 is the witness who was driving the motorcycle in which the deceased was sitting and he also sustained injury in course of the accident. P.W.7 is a witness to the extra judicial confession made by the Appellant Anuja. P.W.8 the informant in the case claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.9 is the I.O. and P.W.10 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. P.W.11, the M.V.I. examined the motorcycle as well as the Marshal Jeep on police requisition. The trial court on the basis of the version of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the postmortem report, found both the Appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them thereunder. So far as the 3rd accused Hemanta Kumar Sahu is concerned, the trial court having not found any material acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302/212 of the I.P.C. 4. Miss Rath, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Anuja assails the impugned judgment on the ground that out of the so called eyewitnesses to the occurrence, two are brothers of the deceased and they claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. According to Miss Rath, the presence of the brothers at different places near about the place of incident cannot be a coincidence and therefore, their version should not be accepted. According to Miss Rath, the presence of the brothers at different places near about the place of incident cannot be a coincidence and therefore, their version should not be accepted. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that so far as P.W.5 is concerned, though he is injured eye-witness to the occurrence, his version is full of contradiction and no reliance can be placed on him. Shri Routray, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Ramakanta Sahu submitted that this Appellant is the driver of the vehicle and was sitting by the side of the Appellant Anuja on the date of occurrence. The allegations are against Appellant Anuja and he was only sitting in the vehicle. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant Ramakanta had intention to cause death of the deceased or shared any such intention with Appellant Anuja. In absence of any material to support the charge u/s 34 of the I.P.C., the Appellant Ramakanta should not have been convicted. 5. The learned Counsel for the State referring to the evidence of the eyewitnesses submitted that all the eye-witnesses to the occurrence corroborate each other in material particulars and therefore, there is no reason for the Court not to place reliance on them. The contradiction pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the evidence of P.W.5 have no bearing and not relevant for the purpose of the case. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the State that the consistent evidence of eye-witness to the occurrence get corroboration from the extra judicial confession made by the Appellant Anuja as well as the medical report. So far as the Appellant Ramakanta is concerned, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the State that he was the other occupant of the jeep when the incident took place and therefore, it cannot be said that he did not share the common intention with Appellant Anuja in causing death of the deceased. 6. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence adduced before the trial court. P.W.1, Dillip Kumar Pradhan is an independent witness to the occurrence. He in his deposition has stated that on 14.7.2003 at about 1.40 P.M. when he was proceeding towards the bye pass from the guest house, he saw the deceased Arjuna and P.W.5 moving in a motorcycle ahead of him at a distance of 60 to 70 cubits. P.W.1, Dillip Kumar Pradhan is an independent witness to the occurrence. He in his deposition has stated that on 14.7.2003 at about 1.40 P.M. when he was proceeding towards the bye pass from the guest house, he saw the deceased Arjuna and P.W.5 moving in a motorcycle ahead of him at a distance of 60 to 70 cubits. A Marshal Jeep was coming from their back side. The said Jeep was being driven by the Appellant Anuja Sahu. The Marshal Jeep dashed against the back of the motorcycle as a result of which the deceased fell down on the right side of the motorcycle and P.W. 5 fell down on the left of the road along with the motorcycle. The Jeep covered a little distance from the place of accident and again came back by use of the reverse gear. At that time Appellant Anuja Sahu was shouting to kill the deceased and ran over the jeep on the deceased. Thereafter he proceeded towards the deceased and lifted him from the head. However the deceased died at the spot. He took the deceased and P.W.5 in another Jeep to N.T.P.C. Hospital where the Doctor declared the deceased to be dead. This witness has been subjected to a long cross-examination and nothing has been pointed out from the cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. P.W.2 is also another eye-witness to the occurrence and he has corroborated the testimony of P.W.1 in every material particular. In cross-examination, he has stated that he witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 15 to 20 feet and the deceased fell at a distance of 7 to 8 feet from the motorcycle on the road and P.W.5 fell at a distance of 12 to 15 feet from the deceased. He has further stated in cross-examination that both left side front and real wheel of the Jeep ran over the deceased. He had seen injuries on the hand, leg and head as well as left side cheek of the deceased. P.W.3 is one of the brothers of the deceased who also claims to have witnessed the occurrence when he was proceeding to the house of his friend through the over bridge. This witness has also corroborated the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. P.W.3 is one of the brothers of the deceased who also claims to have witnessed the occurrence when he was proceeding to the house of his friend through the over bridge. This witness has also corroborated the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony. P.W. 4 is the wife of the deceased who was stated that the deceased had taken the Ash pond work in N.T.P.C. and since the day he took the work, the Appellant Anuja had threatened the deceased. The Appellant Anuja had also assaulted the Supervisor at the time of work for which an F.I.R. was lodged against Appellant Anuja in Kaniha Police Station and he was taken to custody. She has further stated that the Appellant Anuja came to their house and threatened her to kill her husband since the work was snatched away from him by the deceased. She has also stated that she had received threatened over phone from the Appellant Anuja. P.W.5 is the injured eye-witness to the occurrence. He in his deposition has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 1.30 A.M. he along with deceased were proceeding with a motorcycle from Kaniha towards N.T.P.C. plant. He was driving the motorcycle and deceased Arjuna was sitting on the back side of the motorcycle. When they were proceeding on the road near the telephone exchange, the Marshal Jeep came from their backside and dashed against the motorcycle. He fell down on the left side but the deceased fell down on the right side of the middle of the road. The Appellant Anuja who was driving the vehicle again came back and ran over the deceased. Thereafter the Appellant Anuja left the place with the vehicle. When he left the place where the deceased was lying, he found P. Ws.1, 2 and 3 standing near the deceased. The deceased was dead by that time. He had sustained injuries on both his knees. The learned Counsel for the Appellant-Anuja drew attention of the Court to the cross-examination of this witness and submitted that the statement made in the cross-examination appears to be different than what this witness had stated in chief. This witness in course of cross-examination stated that he was moving on the pitch portion of the road on the left and the road was 25 feet width. This witness in course of cross-examination stated that he was moving on the pitch portion of the road on the left and the road was 25 feet width. The motorcycle covered 3 to 5 feet to the front due to dashing and he fell down in front of the motorcycle after dashing. He fell down on the pitch portion of the road covering 4 to 5 feet from the left and the deceased fell down on the pitch portion of the road at a distance of about 5 to 6 feet from the motorcycle. There was a gap of 15 feet to the right of the pitch road from the place where the deceased was lying. The bumper of the Jeep dashed against the motorcycle. The Jeep after dashing against the motorcycle stopped at a distance of about 10 to 15 cubits from the place of dashing. The vehicle ran over the deceased after dashing till it halted at a distance of 10 to 15 cubits from the place of dashing. There was no injury on the body of the deceased when he fell down on the road after the vehicle dashed against the motorcycle. Both the front wheels of the Jeep and the rear wheel ran over the deceased when he was lying on the road. When the Appellant Anuja driving the vehicle to the back, the witnesses were standing at a distance of 3 to 4 feet from the deceased. These witnesses were only shouting when the Jeep came back and ran over the deceased. Referring to this statement, the statement of P.W.5, it was contented by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Anuja that though in examination in chief this witness has stated about running over of the vehicle once, in cross-examination he stated that the vehicle ran over the deceased twice. P.W.6 is the Doctor who examined P.W.5 on police requisition and found two injuries on the right and left knee joint. P.W.7 is the witness before whom the Appellant Anuja made an extra judicial confession stating that he had killed the deceased by crossing his Marshal Jeep over him. Appellant Anuja also told this witness that he killed the deceased as he had grudge against him. P.W. 8 is another brother of the deceased who had witnessed the occurrence when he was coming in his motorcycle from the over bridge towards the permanent township. Appellant Anuja also told this witness that he killed the deceased as he had grudge against him. P.W. 8 is another brother of the deceased who had witnessed the occurrence when he was coming in his motorcycle from the over bridge towards the permanent township. He is the witness who had lodged the F.I.R. and has also corroborated the evidence of P. Ws.1, 2 and 3. P.W.9 is the I.O. who conducted the investigation and P.W. 10 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. In course of postmortem examination, several injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the Doctor was of the opinion that cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock on account of injuries to vital organs like heart, lungs and brain. He was also of the opinion that all the injuries found in the body of the deceased are possible by repeated running of a vehicle over the body of the deceased. P.W.11 is the M.V.I. who had inspected the motorcycle and the Marshal Jeep involved in the incident. 7. On analysis of the entire evidence as stated above, we find that P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and P.W.7 is the witness before whom an extra judicial confession was made by the Appellant Anuja. It was contented by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Anuja that except P.W.5, the rest of the witnesses are chance witnesses and therefore, no reliance can be placed on their version. She also submitted that the evidence of P.W.5 does not corroborate the evidence of P. Ws.1, 2, 3 and 8 and therefore no reliance can also be placed on P.W.5. As is evident from the discussion made earlier, P.W.1 as an independent witness to the occurrence and he witnessed the entire incident from a distance of 60 to 70 cubits while he was proceeding towards bye-pass from the guest house. There is nothing in cross-examination to show that his presence at the place of occurrence can be questioned. P.W.2 is another independent witness to the occurrence who has also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 in every material particular and his presence at the spot also cannot be questioned. As a matter of fact presence of these two witnesses is confirmed by P.W.5 in cross-examination. P.W.2 is another independent witness to the occurrence who has also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 in every material particular and his presence at the spot also cannot be questioned. As a matter of fact presence of these two witnesses is confirmed by P.W.5 in cross-examination. P.W.3 is one of the brothers of the deceased who happened to be near about the spot of occurrence and claims to have witnessed the occurrence. Similarly P.W.8 is another brother of the deceased who also claims to be near about the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Even if the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted and evidence of P. Ws.3 and 8 is not looked into, the prosecution has been able to prove the allegation through P. Ws.1, 2 and 5. The criticism made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant with regard to evidence of P.W.5 may not be of much of relevance in view of the evidence of two independent eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P. Ws.1 and 2. P.W.5 in examination in chief has specifically stated that after dashing the motorcycle from its back side, the Appellant Anuja drove the vehicle forward and halted 10 to 15 feet ahead of the place where the deceased was lying and again came back by use of reverse gear and ran over the deceased. In cross-examination he appears to have stated that immediately after dashing the vehicle ran over the deceased and again came back and ran over the deceased for the second time. The recording of such evidence does not appear to be correct considering the fact that though this witness in cross-examination states that the vehicle ran over the deceased after dashing, there is also a statement in his cross-examination that there was no injuries on the body of the deceased Arjuna when he fell down on the road due to dashing of the Jeep against the motorcycle. The evidence of P.W.5 to the extent that the vehicle came back and ran over the deceased is corroborated by the evidence of all the four other eye-witnesses to the occurrence. His deposition also finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.6 who examined him on police requisition and found injuries on the left and right knees. The evidence of P.W.5 to the extent that the vehicle came back and ran over the deceased is corroborated by the evidence of all the four other eye-witnesses to the occurrence. His deposition also finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.6 who examined him on police requisition and found injuries on the left and right knees. The evidence of P.W.10 also clearly prove that the vehicle was ran over the deceased causing several injuries and P.W.10 was also of the view that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased are possible by repeated running of the vehicle over the body of the deceased. Therefore, even if P.W.5 is partly believed his evidence gets corroboration from other independent sources such as the evidence of P. Ws.1, 2, 6 and 10. It is therefore, clear from the evidence of these witnesses that it is Appellant Anuja who dashed against the back of the motorcycle in which P.W.5 and the deceased were proceeding and after covering a distance of 10 to 15 feet he stopped the vehicle came back again and ran over the deceased who was lying on the road. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Anuja submitted that there was no intention to cause death of the deceased and therefore, he should not be made liable for commission of offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. We are not able to accept such a contention considering the fact that Appellant Anuja not only dashed against the motorcycle but also moved ahead and again came back and ran over the deceased who was lying on the road. Apart from the above, there was enmity between the deceased and the Appellant Anuja and Appellant Anuja had threatened to kill the deceased. The evidence of the eye-witnesses also get corroboration from the extra judicial confession made by the Appellant Anuja before P.W.7. P.W.7 has specifically stated that on the date of occurrence at about 4 P.M. when he was in his village, someone called him and informed that a person has been murdered. He came towards Hadisahi chhak where a Marshal Jeep had been parked. The Appellant Anuja and Appellant Ramakanta were in the said Jeep. When he enquired about the reason for calling him, the Appellant Anuja disclosed that he had killed the deceased by crossing his Marshal Jeep over him. He came towards Hadisahi chhak where a Marshal Jeep had been parked. The Appellant Anuja and Appellant Ramakanta were in the said Jeep. When he enquired about the reason for calling him, the Appellant Anuja disclosed that he had killed the deceased by crossing his Marshal Jeep over him. The Appellant Anuja also told that he had killed the deceased as he had grudge against him. In cross-examination this witness has further stated that the Appellant Anuja getting down from the vehicle came to the ground and talked to him confidentially. He asked about the reason for calling him, the Appellant Anuja disclosed about the incident and said that he had killed a leader named Arjuna. In view of such nature of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment finding the Appellant Anuja guilty of charge u/s 302 of the IPC. 8. So far as the Appellant Ramakanta is concerned, we have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and there is not a whisper anywhere to show that there was a prior meeting of the mind of both the Appellants or that he shared the common intention of causing death of the deceased with Appellant Anuja. Admittedly Appellant Ramakanta is the driver of the Jeep. At the time of occurrence, Appellant Anuja was driving the vehicle and Appellant Ramakanta was sitting in the side. Merely because he was one of the occupants of the vehicle, no inference can be drawn that he shared the common intention of killing the deceased with Appellant Anuja. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that either there was a prior meeting of mind or at the spur of the moment the Appellant Ramakanta shared the common intention with Appellant Anuja in causing death of the deceased. We are, therefore, of the view that in absence any material whatsoever, with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C., Appellant Ramakanta could not have been convicted for commission of offence committing by the Appellant Anuja. 9. In view of the discussions made above, the Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2004 is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2004 is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court so far as Appellant Ramakanta Sahu is concerned, is set aside and the said judgment convicting the Appellant Anuja Kumar Sahu is sustained.